5 ms·

Offer a 10% tax free finders fee to anyone who finds any wasteful spending like that. $600k once for a $6 million annual savings (and that's before you fire who

Offer a 10% tax free finders fee to anyone who finds any wasteful spending like that. $600k once for a $6 million annual savings (and that's before you fire whomever is in charge of auditing the books already) is a steal. Accountants and auditors could work like bug bounty hunters.

ryandrake 6y ago
This is a great idea, but waste is in the eye of the beholder. A $6M environmental impact study might be considered waste by me, considered politically nice by the politician who agreed to it, considered legally necessary by the government's lawyer, and considered vital by the contractor paid to perform the study. Who's right?
- willcipriano 6y ago
  If similar environmental impact studies cost half as much or if the study was not read by those who ordered it that is a pretty clear case. Some things are ambiguous I admit but I'm willing to bet there is enough low hanging fruit to keep a good number of people employed looking for it. Edit: This is a HN faux pas however, please don't downvote the person above, they added to the discussion. I suspect that may be a common objection and I'm glad to be able to clarify it.
  - btilly 6y ago
    If similar environmental impact studies cost half as much... Who defines "similar"? Is a study performed in Texas similar to one performed in California? Is a study performed on land that drains into the municipal water supply similar to one performed on land that doesn't? Are two studies performed near each other location 10 years apart "similar" if new laws have come into existence, or a local species has been declared endangered in the meantime? No matter how obvious the matter might seem, people will still disagree. And the people spending money can always come up with justifications. ...or if the study was not read by those who ordered it that is a pretty clear case. How do you prove that those who ordered it did not read the study? And what if they did not read the study, but instead read a summary of it prepared by someone qualified who did read the study?
    - willcipriano 6y ago
      > Who defines "similar"? A court of law. > Is a study performed in Texas similar to one performed in California? Is a study performed on land that drains into the municipal water supply similar to one performed on land that doesn't? Are two studies performed near each other location 10 years apart "similar" if new laws have come into existence, or a local species has been declared endangered in the meantime? I don't have the answer to these questions but I wager that we can find experts who do. Presumably firms exist that do hundreds or thousands of studies annually, those firms could testify how they would bid such a project. What the cost structure typically looks like. > How do you prove that those who ordered it did not read the study? A government employee could send a email to the effect that the report was not considered that is later discovered. Alternatively, a whistle-blower may clandestinely gather evidence in order to collect the bounty for themselves. > And what if they did not read the study, but instead read a summary of it prepared by someone qualified who did read the study? That seems like a reasonable use of funds. This isn't going to catch every case, the purpose is to provide a natural check to government corruption and waste. Discoveries made by this system may lead to the judicial branch investigating those who made these choices. The FBI could use these tips to target sting operations. The voting public may use this information to decide whom they are going to elect, and the best part is it's free.
      - chongli 6y ago
        A court of law. If you think these projects are overpriced now, you can’t imagine how expensive they’ll be when every private citizen has been armed with legislation that lets them take the city to court in an attempt to win these cases. Every project will need a team of lawyers and auditors to check that absolutely everything in the project is beyond reproach. It’s just insane how much things would blow up.
        btilly 6y ago
        Exactly. In fact https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-07-12_infrastructure_costs_v2.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-07... argues that most of the increase in construction costs since the 1960s can be attributed to an increasing role for "citizen voices". I have to believe that increasing the power of citizens to impact the process will only make it worse.
darkerside 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
- burlesona 6y ago
  That's an interesting point but it's arguably not the same because you should be able to enforce a strict separation between parties such that it isn't possible for the people who collect bounties to create the waste/corruption that they are being paid the bounty to identify.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    In theory, of course. But when there's money involved, it has a funny way of flowing towards "value creation". In theory, you should be able to keep politicians from benefiting from a quid pro quo with lobbyists. In practice, politicians seem to frequently attain cushy jobs in private industry after their terms end (and sometimes before another begins). Humans are unfailingly creative. I don't know how they'd game the system you set up, but I assure you they will!

ryandrake 6y ago

This is a great idea, but waste is in the eye of the beholder. A $6M environmental impact study might be considered waste by me, considered politically nice by the politician who agreed to it, considered legally necessary by the government's lawyer, and considered vital by the contractor paid to perform the study. Who's right?

willcipriano 6y ago
If similar environmental impact studies cost half as much or if the study was not read by those who ordered it that is a pretty clear case. Some things are ambiguous I admit but I'm willing to bet there is enough low hanging fruit to keep a good number of people employed looking for it. Edit: This is a HN faux pas however, please don't downvote the person above, they added to the discussion. I suspect that may be a common objection and I'm glad to be able to clarify it.
- btilly 6y ago
  If similar environmental impact studies cost half as much... Who defines "similar"? Is a study performed in Texas similar to one performed in California? Is a study performed on land that drains into the municipal water supply similar to one performed on land that doesn't? Are two studies performed near each other location 10 years apart "similar" if new laws have come into existence, or a local species has been declared endangered in the meantime? No matter how obvious the matter might seem, people will still disagree. And the people spending money can always come up with justifications. ...or if the study was not read by those who ordered it that is a pretty clear case. How do you prove that those who ordered it did not read the study? And what if they did not read the study, but instead read a summary of it prepared by someone qualified who did read the study?
  - willcipriano 6y ago
    > Who defines "similar"? A court of law. > Is a study performed in Texas similar to one performed in California? Is a study performed on land that drains into the municipal water supply similar to one performed on land that doesn't? Are two studies performed near each other location 10 years apart "similar" if new laws have come into existence, or a local species has been declared endangered in the meantime? I don't have the answer to these questions but I wager that we can find experts who do. Presumably firms exist that do hundreds or thousands of studies annually, those firms could testify how they would bid such a project. What the cost structure typically looks like. > How do you prove that those who ordered it did not read the study? A government employee could send a email to the effect that the report was not considered that is later discovered. Alternatively, a whistle-blower may clandestinely gather evidence in order to collect the bounty for themselves. > And what if they did not read the study, but instead read a summary of it prepared by someone qualified who did read the study? That seems like a reasonable use of funds. This isn't going to catch every case, the purpose is to provide a natural check to government corruption and waste. Discoveries made by this system may lead to the judicial branch investigating those who made these choices. The FBI could use these tips to target sting operations. The voting public may use this information to decide whom they are going to elect, and the best part is it's free.
    - chongli 6y ago
      A court of law. If you think these projects are overpriced now, you can’t imagine how expensive they’ll be when every private citizen has been armed with legislation that lets them take the city to court in an attempt to win these cases. Every project will need a team of lawyers and auditors to check that absolutely everything in the project is beyond reproach. It’s just insane how much things would blow up.
      - btilly 6y ago
        Exactly. In fact https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-07-12_infrastructure_costs_v2.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-07... argues that most of the increase in construction costs since the 1960s can be attributed to an increasing role for "citizen voices". I have to believe that increasing the power of citizens to impact the process will only make it worse.

darkerside 6y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect

burlesona 6y ago
That's an interesting point but it's arguably not the same because you should be able to enforce a strict separation between parties such that it isn't possible for the people who collect bounties to create the waste/corruption that they are being paid the bounty to identify.
- darkerside 6y ago
  In theory, of course. But when there's money involved, it has a funny way of flowing towards "value creation". In theory, you should be able to keep politicians from benefiting from a quid pro quo with lobbyists. In practice, politicians seem to frequently attain cushy jobs in private industry after their terms end (and sometimes before another begins). Humans are unfailingly creative. I don't know how they'd game the system you set up, but I assure you they will!